OK, but we could bring spending to 50% or 70% of current and still survive.

Yeah, and B.O. has done MASSIVELY BETTER? Yeah right.

__________________
2001 SLK 320 six speed manual
2014 Porsche Cayenne six speed manual

Annoy a Liberal, Read the Constitution

Haven't seen Obama start any wars, have you?

__________________
TC
Current stable:
- 2004 Mazda RALLYWANKEL
- 2007 Saturn sky redline
- 2004 Explorer...under surgery.

Past: 135i, GTI, 300E, 300SD, 300SD, Stealth

If you are referring to Mitt, then I say he is an odd choice. All evidence indicates that he would bust the budget beyond anything Obama ever considered doing. One piece of evidence supporting that view is that he is a Republican. They have been budget busters for years and have a much worse track record than do the Democrats. Another thing supporting my view is the Ryan "plan." Ryan's laughable assumptions indicate that he is unconcerned with debt/deficit. It's all ideology for him and Romney seems to be hitching his wagon to him.

On the other hand, if Romney really wants to raise taxes on the middle class - http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf - then maybe he can achieve a lower deficit, but not in a beneficial way.

That's awfully nice of you.

I can't believe you keep dropping this turd in here. Every day you drop it in a thread, and accuse everyone of being unable to perform simple fourth grade math; and every day I ask you to provide a source or show us you math. Shortly after that is when you scamper off to your afternoon nap, or maybe you go do some ground loops I don't know. What I do know is that you do more to undermine your credibility, and hence the credibility of your ideas than anyone else. Are you a secret propaganda operative of the liberal establishment? I couldn't imagine a better one than you.

__________________
Remember, Safety Third!
'99 E300 Turbodiesel, '82 300TD, 1996 12V Cummins Turbo, '94 Neoplan - Detroit 6V92TA

If your research skills are so weak that you are unable to quickly determine the annual deficit and income of the top 1%, then I can't do anything to help you. Sorry.

BTW, you are normally on my ignore list, so I don't sit around responding to your every post. Every once in a while I unfortunately see your blathering posts and respond to them. That will cease at this point, however. You are such a wing nut, and one with such little understanding of the issues along with no willingness to google even the SIMPLE stuff, like the annual deficit, you're just not worth bothering with anymore. See ya!

__________________
2001 SLK 320 six speed manual
2014 Porsche Cayenne six speed manual

Annoy a Liberal, Read the Constitution

You really surprise me TBO! I would have never taken you for someone who believes that Bush flew those planes into the World Trade Center.

Life deals new surprises every day.

__________________
2001 SLK 320 six speed manual
2014 Porsche Cayenne six speed manual

Annoy a Liberal, Read the Constitution

You sure got me there Larry, seeing as Bush and Rumsfeld had nothing to do with Iraq.

__________________
TC
Current stable:
- 2004 Mazda RALLYWANKEL
- 2007 Saturn sky redline
- 2004 Explorer...under surgery.

Past: 135i, GTI, 300E, 300SD, 300SD, Stealth

Get yourself a nice nap, Ground Loop. You'll feel better after that. Maybe good enough to explain fourth grade math.

__________________
Remember, Safety Third!
'99 E300 Turbodiesel, '82 300TD, 1996 12V Cummins Turbo, '94 Neoplan - Detroit 6V92TA

How much do we spend on defense again?





It seems like it's less than we spend on some pretty big social programs. Like maybe half as much.

Now, I'm not saying there's no room for trimming, in either area, just that so often it seems like people think we spend soooooo much of our budget on defense, when the numbers tell a different story.

MV

Here's another way to look at it.

__________________
Remember, Safety Third!
'99 E300 Turbodiesel, '82 300TD, 1996 12V Cummins Turbo, '94 Neoplan - Detroit 6V92TA

Problem is that the funding for the wars in the Middle East comes out of special appropriations, not the "defense budget" number. "Defense spending" is actually much higher than $700B.

Total Defense Spending – Between 2001 and 2011 the United States spent $7.2 trillion dollars (in constant FY2012 dollars) on defense, including the Pentagon’s annual base budget, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and nuclear weapons-related activities of the Department of Energy (Function 050). See below for a breakout of the base budget, nuclear weapons, and war costs.

• The Pentagon’s “base” budget – The Pentagon’s annual budget (Function 051) – not including war costs or DoE’s nuclear weapons activities – grew from $290.5 billion in FY2000, to $526.1 billion in FY2011. That’s a nominal increase of $235.6 billion (or 81 percent) and a “real” (inflation-adjusted) increase of $160.3 billion, or 43 percent.

• Department of Energy – Annual funding for the nuclear weapons activities rose more slowly between FY2000 and FY2011, from $12.4 billion to $19.0 billion. That’s a nominal increase of $6.6 billion (or 53 percent) and a “real” increase of $3.3 billion, or 21 percent.

• War Costs – The total costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the Department of Defense and all other federal agencies (Department of State, USAID, etc.) will reach $1.26 trillion by the end of the current fiscal year (FY 2011) on September 30, 2011. Of this, $797.3 billion is for Iraq, and $459.8 billion is for Afghanistan. In constant FY2012 dollars, the totals through FY2011 are $1.36 trillion, $869 billion for Iraq and $487.6 billion for Afghanistan.

These figures, or ones like them, are well known and fairly simple to track. Both the Department of Defense and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide data on Pentagon and other military-related spending as part of the annual federal budget request released in February each year. The Congressional Research Service does an excellent job of analyzing the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. NPP also does its own war cost analysis on its “Cost of War” website.

Homeland Security – One security spending figure that isn’t well known is the amount the U.S. government has spent to date on “homeland security.” This is because homeland security funding flows through literally dozens of federal agencies and not just through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). For example, of the $71.6 billion requested for “homeland security” in FY2012, only $37 billion is funded through DHS. A substantial part is funded through the Department of Defense – $18.1 billion in FY2012 – and others, including Health and Human Services ($4.6 billion) and the Department of Justice ($4.1 billion).

Because tracking homeland security funding is so difficult, starting back in FY2003 OMB began looking across the entire budget and providing summary tables of the annual request by agency. This analysis does not, however, provide historical data nor any cumulative funding figures. By going back and reviewing each annual request, however, NPP has been able to determine total government homeland security funding since the September 11 attacks.

Funding for homeland security has risen from $16 billion in FY2001 to $71.6 billion requested for FY2012. Adjusted for inflation, the United States has spent $635.9 billion on homeland security since FY2001. Of this $163.8 billion has been funded within the Pentagon’s annual budget. The remaining $472.1 billion has been funded through other federal agencies. For full details of the FY2012 homeland security request, see the “Homeland Security Mission Funding by Agency and Budget Account” appendix to the FY2012 budget.

U.S. Security Spending Since 9/11 - Analysis - National Priorities Project

Some people fail to understand the inescapable paradigm of global geopolitical dominance and submission, fortunately such failure to understand that inescapable paradigm is not yet the predominant culture. But there is sufficient evidence that a cultural shift towards submission to dominance is acceptable to a growing minority.

Profligate defense spending doesn't insure dominance. A balanced economy with a strong (but not over-funded) military does. Spending hundreds of billions on third-world Muslim pestholes while our own infrastructure rots is basically making the same mistake as the USSR did in the 80ies.